DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE FOOTBALL FEDERATION OF AUSTRALIA DETERMINATION IN THE FOLLOWING MATTER: Player and club Jonas Salley, Gold Coast United Alleged offence Item R 1 of Annexure A – 6. Table Of Offences in FFA A-League Disciplinary Regulations (offence of “Serious Foul Play (eg when challenging for the ball)”) Date of alleged offence 11 December 2011 Occasion of alleged offence Match between Sydney FC and Gold Coast FC Date of Disciplinary Notice 13 December 2011 Basis the matter is before A referral: see clause 3.3(a) and 9.25(b) the Disciplinary Committee Date of Hearing Wednesday 14 December 2011 Date of Determination Wednesday 14 December 2011 Disciplinary Committee John Marshall SC, Chair Members Anthony Lo Surdo SC Arthur Koumoukelis A. INTRODUCTION AND JURISDICTION 1. The Committee has jurisdiction under clause 4.4 of the “FFA A-League Disciplinary Regulations” applicable to the 2011-2012 A-League season ( the Disciplinary Regulations ) to determine matters which have been referred to it pursuant to the Disciplinary Regulations. When a matter is duly referred, clause 3.3(a) provides that the Committee must determine the matter and impose such sanctions as are authorised and appropriate to the determination. 2. In this matter there has been a referral under clause 9.25(b) of the Disciplinary Regulations. In the case of a referral under clause 9.25(b) the Match Review Panel ( the MRP ) will have decided (in its sole opinion) that the incident escaped the attention of the referee (see clause 9.2) and that an Offence has been committed (see clause 9.24). The consequence is that the player will have an automatic Mandatory Match Suspension (in this case 1 match). No part of the above process is able to be referred to the Committee and hence cannot be appealed. Further, the MRP also will have formed the view that, on the material available to the MRP, an additional sanction of up to 4 matches over and above the Mandatory Match Suspension was warranted1 and the player will have elected not to accept the proposed additional sanction. That is what has happened here. It is abundantly clear that the function of the Committee in such a case is solely to 1 In this case the additional sanction is one match over the Mandatory Match Suspension. FFA-Salley DC decision final 2011.12.15.docx 2 determine the question of what additional sanction should be imposed over and above the Mandatory Match Suspension which must be served. Guilt or innocence is not up for review. That issue has been finally determined by earlier processes. The Committee has no jurisdiction to deal with that question and will not express any view on that topic. 3. Nevertheless, it is for this Committee to determine the additional sanction to be imposed over and above the Mandatory Match Suspension. 4. The MRP issued a noticed dated 12 December 2011 which stated: 1 The MRP has cited you in relation to an incident which took place while you were playing for your Club against Sydney FC on Sunday 11 December in or about the 11th minute. Specifically the subject incident involves an interaction with Dimitri Petratos of Sydney where you appear to strike the other player with your elbow or forearm; 2 The MRP is entitled to cite players as a part of its review of A-League matches under clause 9.1(c)(i) of the Regulations; 3 The MRP reviewed footage of the subject incident at its meeting of 12 December. As a result of this review, the MRP found that you have a case to answer for committing a Category 1 Offence; 4 Pursuant to the categorisation of offences listed at “Appendix A - 6. Table of Offences”, the Category 1 Offence stated by the MRP is “Serious foul play (eg when challenging for the ball)”; 5 The Minimum Sanction for the Offence under the Regulations is one (1) A- League Match. 6 You are hereby provided with the opportunity to show cause as to why an Offence should not be found to have been committed. ... 5. A submission was received on behalf of the player. 6. Following the submission the MRP then issued a disciplinary notice dated 13 December 2011 which stated: 1 The MRP cited you in relation to an incident which took place while you were playing for your Club against Sydney FC on Sunday 11 December in or in about the 11th minute. 2 At its meeting of Tuesday 13 December, the MRP reviewed the submissions lodged by your Club in response to the Show Cause Notice issued on 12 December. 3 Having taken into consideration these submissions, you were found to have committed the Category 1 Offence, as specified under “Annexure A – 6. Table of Offences”, of “Serious foul play (eg when challenging for the ball)”; 4 As a consequence of this finding, you are required to serve a Mandatory Match Suspension which, in this case, is one (1) match. 5 The MRP has proposed a sanction of two (2) A-League Matches, being the Minimum Sanction for the charge of Serious Foul Play plus one (1) additional A- League Match. 6 The Minimum Sanction for the Offence under the Regulations is one (1) A- League Match. 7. The disciplinary notice also gave the player the option to have the matter referred to this Committee. The player did that later on 13 December 2011. 8. Written submissions have been received on behalf of the player. 3 B. THE HEARING 9. On the evening of Wednesday 14 December 2011 the Committee heard the referral of the above matter. It was heard on an urgent basis at the request of the player. At the conclusion of the hearing (following deliberations and pursuant to clause 20.4 of the Disciplinary Regulations) the Committee verbally announced the result of the hearing. These are the written reasons of the Committee in the “shortest form reasonably practicable ” (see clause 20.3(c)). 10. At the hearing Disciplinary Counsel was Ivan Griscti and the player was represented by Clive Palmer by phone conference. During the course of the hearing the player himself was dialled in and spoke on conference phone which was heard by Mr Palmer. C. FACTS 11. In around the 11th minute of the game there was an interaction between Jonas Salley of Gold Coast and Dimitri Petratos of Sydney where the right arm of Jonas Salley (at about his elbow or forearm) came into contact with the other player. 12. We have had the benefit of seeing the incident from several different angles of footage from Fox Sports. 13. The following images have been captured from the Fox Sports DVD of the footage: (1) Shot 1 4 (2) Shot 2 – which is in the same sequence directly after shot 1 (3) Shot 3 which is from a different angle (unfortunately it is quite blurry). D. SUBMISSIONS 14. Reference has been made to clause 11.2 of the Disciplinary Regulations. 15. The matters submitted by Disciplinary Counsel included: 5 (1) The contact made was such as to bring the player within the third offence in the Table of Offences to the Disciplinary Regulations. (2) The player was seeking to challenge for the ball and the use of the upper arm and/or elbow was serious and foul play. 16. The matters submitted on behalf of the player included: (1) that there is contact between Salley and Dimitri (2) both players are running while challenging for possession of the ball (3) Salley is in front of Dimitri both chasing the ball and at the time of the alleged strike (4) Dimitri lunges into the back of Salley prior to the incident (5) Dimitri pulls up alleging he was interfered with by Salley (6) The linesman was in plain sight of the players and the alleged incident (7) The Referee was only 15-18 metres from the incident in plain sight from behind as per the camera view from the Southern Stand (8) The Match Official apparently also saw the incident from the tunnel which I find it peculiar for him to be requesting the footage from Fox. 17. Jonas Salley provided a witness statement which included: As suggested I did not raise my elbow to ‘strike’ Dimitri as I had the front position and used my upper body movement to retain the frontal position. There was no purpose in me striking Dimitri with my elbow as suggested as I already had the frontal position. I did feel Dimitri making contact with my back as he attempted to gain the front position 18. When Mr Salley spoke by telephone conference during the hearing he said that it was not his intention to strike or hurt the other player. 19. During the hearing Mr Palmer made submissions which we refer to below. 20. First it was submitted that the incident had not escaped the attention of the Referee. The submission was based upon the footage which shows that it was possible for the assistant referee running the sideline to have seen the incident. 21. Second it was submitted that it was open for the player to dispute the finding of guilt by the MRP. It was submitted that any set of rules which did not provide for an appeal on the question of guilt was contrary to Australian law and that therefore this Committee must have jurisdiction to deal with this question. 22. Third, it was submitted that the second match over and above the mandatory match should be set aside and in the alternative that if not set aside it should be suspended under Clause 12.3.